should bribing foreigners be legal?

Saudi Arabia seems quite happy with it, as they are when they also purchase from the USA and France under similar circumstances.

Doesnt the USA have some pretty stringent anti corruption laws, which put legal liability on all companies registered in the USA in regards to bribes etc.

Gaz

They do indeed, which is why ISTR the US government is taking proceedings in the US courts against the British government in this matter. And, as far as important customers are concerned, they don't get any more important than that.

They certainly don't think that the UK government's conduct is OK, and bearing in mind that the 9/11 bombers were Saudis they take a pretty dim view of that country.

Only if it might be detrimental to the interests of the USA.

But they were quite happy to turn a blind eye to their citizens funding the IRA over several decades. Which is good reason for us to take a pretty dim view of any American claiming the high moral ground.

Also, have a look at Lockheed's record on arms sales.

The US Government sees the Saudi Government (not the people) as a friend in the middle east. It is the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia (which contains Mecca) that is used by Islamic leaders to whip up extremism....

Gaz

Everyone, because the UK's reputation will suffer, and so therefore will foreign trade, particularly tourism.

uk.legal, where I am posting from, discusses the law in the UK

The question is not whether some people consider bribery acceptable, but whether it is illegal under UK law.

That still does not change the legal position.

Colin Bignell

OK, but it isn't, is it? Not directly, at least. It's only because bribes are often secret, that they tend to lead to tax evasion, and it is this which makes them illegal.

That's what was interesting about the USA reaction to 9/11. They seemed to like Irish terrorism but as soon as they get attacked they change their tune pretty quickly!

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 at 19:39:18, unit743 wrote in uk.legal :

Contracts should be won honestly, or not at all - moral superiority cannot be claimed while turning a blind eye to corruption.

Ronald Raygun wrote

Yes but the tax evasion is taking place in the recipient's country, not in the UK, and the UK has no business regulating that end of the deal.

On top of which, how do you know whether the recipient of the bribe declared it or not? In a country where bribery/commission is normal, there is no problem being open about it.

As I said earlier, IMO, bribery is contrary to the Competition Act 1998, because it is a business practice intended to distort competition, which does make it illegal. If the tender documents explicitly included the requirement to offer a bribe, that would likely remove any objections under that Act.

Colin Bignell

I was talking in general terms, without reference to any specific case. Bribery can (and does) take place entirely within the UK too.

Quite so. And of course mortgage or insurance brokers are never influenced, in their choice of whose loans or policies they offer to their clients, by the size of commission they get, are they? :-)

You're the first to use the word "commission" in this thread. I suspect that the ragheads regard it just as appropriate that the guy who negotiates a purchase should receive a commission as we in the West give a commission to he who arranges a sale.

And of elected representatives and officials allowing the interests of campaign contributors to affect their decisions.

Commission or even tip are probably not far from the mark - a way of saying "please" and "thank you" that is understood everywhere. Compromise of one sort or another is essential to business but whatever errors of judgement may or may not have been made it's a pity that so many of our own people are keen to put the boot in .

Then stop claiming moral superiority. The corruption you speak of is not considered to be so in some countries we do business with. Faced with a choice of feeling 'morally superior' or feeding ones family....I know where my loyalties lie.